Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Monday, October 19, 2015

Respecting the looter

Looters are people too. They deserve our respect for what they do. Whether done for fun and profit or for protest against imagined injustice, looting is a time tested benevolent American activity which should be honored and revered.

That’s what’s being taught to college students at the prestigious Ivy League Yale University these days. The University’s divinity school hired “Black-Lives-Matter” leader, DeRay Mckesson, to lecture classes on the historical merits of looting as an admirable form of protest.

“The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power,” is the message appearing in “The New Inquiry” magazine entitled entitled “In Defense of Looting.”

“On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, ‘opportunistically,’ and in excess.”

“The relationship and tension between protest and property destruction is something that America has grappled with since the Revolutionary War & the Boston Tea Party,” Mckesson explains.

The Revolutionary War?; the Boston Tea Party? Am I missing something here? This guy is actually comparing the recent savage looting and property destruction rampages in Ferguson Missouri, Baltimore Maryland and elsewhere to the Revolutionary War and the Boston Tea Party?

Now I’ve heard everything. The Boston Tea Party was not about looting. The tea was thrown overboard. It wasn’t stolen. The Revolutionary war was not about looting and property destruction. It was about establishing American independence from the tyrannical authority of the King of England.

The reality of the matter is that this delusional fool is getting paid for conning gullible naïve college students into believing that all Blacks are the victims of white privilege which justifies theft and destruction of property. He tries to justify Michael Brown brazenly committing a strong armed robbery in a convenience store, charging a police officer trying to arrest him, followed by the looting a property destruction after he was shot by the cop in self defense.

Those looters weren’t breaking into stores and stealing property as a means of protest. Their sole motive was the criminal opportunity to acquire free stuff. They were and are criminals. What kind of respect is a criminal looter and wanton property destroyer entitled to? In my opinion they richly deserved to be shot and killed on the spot. Any reasonable store owner should have the right to defend his life and property with a high powered rifle, picking the looting criminals off one by one as they entered his premises unlawfully with intent to pillage and destroy.

That’s what respecting the looter should be about.


  1. Interesting. It would have been better if you had refrained from yet another attempt to revise history so that your guesses concerning what happened with Michael Brown become proven fact, though.

  2. Interesting. It would have been better if you had refrained from yet another attempt to revise history so that your guesses concerning what happened with Michael Brown become proven fact, though.

    1. Thanks, Tom. But what history was I trying to revise? Which statements are guesses? What facts weren't proved to the satisfaction of the grand jury?

  3. You either are or used to be an attorney, so you know damn well that it is not the job of a grand jury to have facts proven to its satisfaction. It is the job of a grand jury to determine whether or not probable cause exists to believe that a crime was committed and that it was committed by a particular person or persons.

    Who knows what the grand jury might have determined in that case if the prosecutor had done HIS job, which was to try to convince the jury that said probable cause existed, instead of moonlighting as the defense attorney for the guy he was allegedly trying to get indicted?

    The only thing that has been proven to any degree of reasonable certainty regarding the shooting of Michael Brown is that Darren Wilson shot him. Which is not surprising since Darren Wilson admitted to shooting him. Every other element of what transpired that day was the subject of conflicting eyewitness testimony, and the "prosecutor" chose to present only the testimony which tended to exonerate Wilson.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that probable cause existed in AT LEAST the measure that would have resulted in an indictment if the victim, rather than the perpetrator, had been the one who happened to have a shiny badge. There's also little doubt that the perpetrator would have been acquitted if indicted on the basis of reasonable doubt.

    You think that Brown attacked Wilson because you want Brown to have attacked Wilson. Which is fine, until you start pretending that that was anything even close to proven in the process.

    1. Yes, and as an attorney I know that, the case of Michael Brown, the grand jury was satisfied from the totality of the forensic and eyewitness evidence presented that no probable cause was shown to justify charging the cop with any crime.

      No, it was not the prosecutor's job to convince the grand jury that probable cause existed -- unless the evidence was sufficient to support and indictment. His job was to see that justice was done according to the evidence. He didn't have to convene a grand jury. He did it in order to make the evidence public in a very controversial case.

      Not true, there was no evidence withheld. The credible eyewitness testimony corroborated the forensic evidence and officer Wilson's account in every detail. The non-credible witness testimony was debunked by the forensic evidence.

      No doubt whatsoever? Surely you exaggerate. You seem to have a knee jerk opinion about all cops which leads you to conclude that none of them can ever be trusted to do the right thing regardless of the circumstances. Yet you grudgingly do admit that there was plenty of reasonable doubt as to Wilson's culpability.

      No, I'm convinced that Brown attacked Wilson because that's what the forensic evidence established. First Brown went for Wilson's gun, got shot in the hand, ran off and then turned back to charge Wilson causing Wilson to shoot Brown in self defense.

      The looting and pillaging which followed occurred because the criminals thought these events furnished them with a perfect excuse to plunder and destroy. Protest had nothing to do with it and I'm sure you will agree.

  4. Timothy,

    Sorry to take so long to reply to your last -- I was having computer problems when I tried initially, gave up, and only just this morning remembered to get back around to it. I'm going to work on responding to your last comment backward, last things first. You write:

    "The looting and pillaging which followed occurred because the criminals thought these events furnished them with a perfect excuse to plunder and destroy. Protest had nothing to do with it and I'm sure you will agree."

    You may be sure I will agree, but you're incorrect on that.

    The looting and pillaging occurred because the cops allowed the looting and pillaging to occur, full stop. There are always opportunistic criminals when there's civil unrest. In this case, the police decided to let those opportunistic criminals run wild as a way of making the actual protesters look like the bad guys. They didn't even do a very good job of the theatrical aspects.

    You're convinced Brown attacked Wilson because you want to be convinced that Brown attacked Wilson. The eyewitness testimony was full of essential conflicts and credibility problems, and and the forensic evidence was inconclusive.

    Which is why no, I do not "grudgingly admit" that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to Wilson's culpability. I said from the start that if he went to trial, he would almost certainly be acquitted and almost certainly SHOULD be acquitted based precisely on that reasonable doubt. That's due process of law.

    What ISN'T due process of law is for the prosecutor to pretend to be prosecuting while actually working as a pro bono defense attorney.

    If he didn't think the evidence indicated probable cause, all he had to do was SAY SO and go about his business. The only reason to file charges or seek an indictment was if he DID think the evidence indicated probable cause.

    He wanted to get out of a difficult political situation. If he prosecuted Wilson, the police unions would throw a fit (in addition to which he's well known for being predisposed to side with the police no matter what -- remember, I lived there, a couple of miles from Ferguson, for 12 years; I know these thugs). If he didn't prosecute Wilson, the citizenry would throw a fit.

    He had to find a way to shift the blame for his action (or lack of action) to someone else, and that someone else was the grand jury.

    Frankly, it was disgusting. Anyone who did what Wilson did and did NOT have a shiny badge to wave around and a special costume to wear would have been arrested, charged or indicted by a prosecutor who actually prosecuted, and faced a trial. The whole thing was an ugly public display of the "some animals are more equal than others" principle.